Farm bill riddled with fat, pork

A bloated, pork-filled farm bill is moving through the Senate, leaving a trail of manure that — like the bill that it dropped from — stinks to high heaven.

The excesses of this bill prove that when it comes to pork, the Democrats can lard on the fat the same as Republicans: Different party, same results.

Included in the $286 billion debacle are government programs to promote spending on handmade cheese, expensive repairs to historic barns and treatment programs for a form of farm stress disorder.

Taxpayer advocate groups call the bill too expensive. Conservatives call it too fat. Most just call it more pork from a Democratic leadership that promised to end such practices when they took over control of Congress.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Reports The Associated Press:

The five-year legislation remains politically popular in Congress, where lawmakers see ample opportunity to include policies and projects that help their states as they head toward an election year. And those who object to the bill’s large tab often end up supporting it for fear of opposing programs popular with their voters.

“People are literally getting bought off for peanuts,” said Scott Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, which opposes the legislation and most farm subsidies.

Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the top Republican on the Budget Committee, says it’s bad fiscal policy.

“I’m not sure many Americans would agree that stress assistance programs for farmers or artisan cheese centers are a good use of their hard-earned dollars,” Gregg said.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has said he will offer amendments to strike many of the extra provisions, including those for the handmade cheese and historic barns.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., is one of two senators behind the cheese provision, which authorizes congressional spending committees to pay for the promotion of artisan, or handmade, cheese. Vermont is home to the greatest number of artisan cheesemakers per capita in the United States, according to the Vermont Institute for Artisan Cheese.

Leahy spokesman David Carle defends the idea, saying artisan cheese production is a promising new sector of the dairy industry.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., a member of the Agriculture Committee and one of the bill’s authors, says the rehabilitation and repair of historic barns would help tourism in agricultural parts of New England. And the stress assistance would help farmers and ranchers deal with volatile markets, he said.

“Farmers tend to be isolated and they deal with so much stress,” he said.

Despite some of the more obscure provisions, Ellis says his group is most concerned with the larger tab — billions of dollars in annual subsidies for producers of corn, wheat, rice, cotton and other major crops.

“The farm bill is a legislative battleship that you cannot turn around quickly,” he said.

The White House has threatened to veto the bill, as President Bush did when the House farm bill passed in July. The Agriculture Department has complained the bill does not do enough to limit subsidies to wealthy farmers.

Conrad and other supporters of the bill, now stalled in the Senate over a partisan procedural dispute, point to an attempt to scale back those programs, including limits on the amount of subsidies paid to those who don’t make a large portion of their income on farming. The bill also increases nutrition benefits for the poor and for rural communities, and adds dollars that protect environmentally sensitive farm land.

“One thing people don’t realize is that 66% of the bill is nutrition, and that goes to every corner of the country,” said Conrad.

But the bill includes millions of dollars for new and expanded subsidies that benefit states from coast to coast, including money for asparagus producers to pay for revenue losses — assistance not available for many other crops — and new dollars for large chickpeas and peanuts.

Montana Sen. Jon Tester, a Democrat and farmer who was narrowly elected last year, added money for camelina, an oilseed used for biofuels that is grown in his state. He says the crop grows well in Montana because it doesn’t need a lot of moisture.

“I think every one of the programs has a direct benefit for the population, whether it’s food security or energy,” he said.

Tester is also a supporter of a $5 billion provision that would help farmers recover from weather-related losses. Much of that money will be directed to Montana and the Dakotas, where low rainfalls have destroyed many crops in recent years.

That provision was added by Montana Sen. Max Baucus, the Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee and a candidate for re-election next year.

Share this:

Comments

At the end of the day, the only difference in the parties, as pertains to spending, is what they want to spend it on. They both deride the spending packages of the other as wasteful, but when they are in the majority, they still spend. Too much, is just the complaint the minority at the time uses.

I personally do not give a rats ass about how, when or why hand made cheese is made and as for all the historic barns, I say let them be restored as projects by local civic/cultural groups. These things are absolutely inane when comparied to what Americas want and need to spend their hard earned tax dollars for. I am completey against having Earmarks,Riders and any other form of “pork” added to bills the men in Washington decide to tag on..We need to put a stop to this unacceptable and underhanded way of spending these bazillions of OUR $$$, and get rid of the congressmen who support it.